I don't get the Medjugorje hype.
#1
https://catholicverve.wordpress.com/2016...edjugorje/

I posted this on another forum and I'm rather bothered by a comment I got: "Your link is nothing but a personal opinion piece. It does not warrant a true discussion of the subject."

It's not just my opinion that the Church cannot approve an apparition where "Mary" says, "All religions are equal before God." The Church cannot approve heresy.

If it were simply a series of apparitions where Mary allegedly said some things and they were all orthodox, holy, and good advice for growing in our faith, I wouldn't feel the need to make an article about it. But this is an apparition that is trying to feed people heresy and I do not understand why there are defenders. Maybe I'm showing my naivete here. I can see why liberals would love it, but I don't get the hype by devout, conservative Catholics. Why not put that energy into following the Fatima message?
Reply
#2
Medjugorje is a touchy subject.

I am not a believer and like Michael Davies piece about Medjugorje . The folks who are Medjugorje supporters are, shall we say, very passionate about it. 

http://www.catholictradition.org/Mary/medjugorje.htm
Reply
#3
I just don't like how the whole thing has been plagued by chaos...the scenario is just strange. One of the visionaries flinched when someone jabbed their fingers toward her eyes (similar to how someone stuck a needle into St. Bernadette...although St. Bernadette didn't flinch at all) and she tried to explain her flinching by saying she was afraid Our Lady would drop the infant Jesus. Really?

I feel like my article is a fair assessment of the problems surrounding these apparitions. I mean, that quote about Muslims and Orthodox, along with Catholics, being "equal to her and her Son" could be seriously twisted around so it meant that the people themselves were equal...but it reads like religious indifferentism, like the religions themselves are equal...and that quote about all religions being equal before God is absolute heresy no matter how you look at it.
Reply
#4
Then there's the fact that it seems like it is an endless stream of visitations from Our Lady.  That also doesn't really ring true. 
Reply
#5
(07-05-2016, 11:04 AM)Fontevrault Wrote: Then there's the fact that it seems like it is an endless stream of visitations from Our Lady.  That also doesn't really ring true.
Yeah...regularly, since 1981. Our Lady appeared, what, once a month in Fatima, from May to October? To me, it seems really strange. I don't want my article to come across like I'm playing the part of the Vatican, though.
Reply
#6
I think it is completely reasonable to ask these questions.  You aren't playing the role of the Vatican per se.  It's not your place to make a determination, but you can ask questions, invite comments, and encourage a discussion of how Medjugorje compares to other apparitions.  Maybe that's a good angle.  What did Mary say at Fatima as compared to this time (as but one example)?  How many times did she appear?  What were the fruits of each of these apparitions?  Then let people draw their own conclusions . . .  Intense comments, lots of visits to your blog, and heated debate are all good things.  It builds readership.
Reply
#7
"You aren't playing the role of the Vatican per se."

That's an amusing comment, because I was literally just told this on the other forum:

"A personal blog is not a mouthpiece of the Holy See; it is a personal opinion. You are not the one to determine if something is heresy or not. I believe that the Church has already made recommendations that devotion to Medjugorje not be encouraged and that pilgrimages are not to be sanctioned by Church leaders."

"You are not the one to determine if something is heresy or not"...well, I can definitely say that something is heretical by its nature...and I never claimed to be a mouthpiece of the Holy See. Whew.  ???

Perhaps I should either rework my article or just take it down. I seem to do better when I focus on explaining devotional practices and the like. I know that not all of my articles are going to be popular with everyone (saying that marriage is between a man and a woman, for example), but I don't want to come across like I'm playing the part of the Pope. That's not my place and I never claimed to do anything like that.

Edit: I ultimately decided to remove that particular article. Maybe I'll give a commentary if/when Medjugorje is not approved to explain why and the like.
Reply
#8
Well, I guess some people are more hypercritical than others.  I see nothing wrong with critiquing the whole thing.  I'm sorry you felt that you had to take it down.
Reply
#9
(07-05-2016, 11:25 AM)In His Love Wrote: Edit: I ultimately decided to remove that particular article. Maybe I'll give a commentary if/when Medjugorje is not approved to explain why and the like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Medjugorje was officially not approved.  Or did I miss something? ???
Reply
#10
No worries, Fonte. :)

(07-05-2016, 02:13 PM)Sir Charles Napier Wrote:
(07-05-2016, 11:25 AM)In His Love Wrote: Edit: I ultimately decided to remove that particular article. Maybe I'll give a commentary if/when Medjugorje is not approved to explain why and the like.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Medjugorje was officially not approved.  Or did I miss something? ???
The Vatican has been investigating it pretty heavily over the last year or so, from what I understand. It's not approved or unapproved at the moment; it's in transit. The CDF has advised the faithful not to attend events that have to do with the seers in some countries.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)